Making Australia One

Shortly after nine, on the morning of April 25, a woman unobtrusively and unpretentiously stepped from the crowd and laid out the aboriginal flag at the foot of the flag pole.  A flag pole that was located by the cenotaph and which was flying the Australian flag at half mast.  Without a word, the woman melted back into the crowd.  A few minutes later, she was brought forward by an official and was asked to remove the flag.  This she meekly did, before quietly laying it on the cenotaph beside the wreaths.  Once again she was asked to move the flag.  Once again she gathered it up.  This time she took it with her as she resumed her position in the crowd.  She was crying.  She was hurt.  I, observing the scene from my place in the band, felt her pain.  I was hurt too.

Shock froze me to my seat.  I couldn't believe the injustice shown towards that woman.  My heart went out in empathy towards the woman.  I wanted to act.  I wanted to speak.  I was frozen.  Anger welled up in me towards the official who had shown such disrespect towards this woman and the people that she represented.  By her actions she was seeking to honour the Aboriginals who fought and died in the wars.  She had respect, and she was showing that respect.  How she was treated was wrong, very wrong.  I wish that I had been able to get up and show my support to that woman.  I didn't speak then, but I am speaking now.

As the crowd dispersed, the words and music of "We are One" rang out, adding insult to injury.  Instead of just playing "We are One", we need to BE one.  We need to be inclusive and respectful.  We need to listen and act.  We can't change the past, but we can, and must, change the present and the future.  

I believe it is about time that we create a new flag for the country of Australia, incorporating Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the design process so that we honour them and thus take another step towards making Australia one.

Self-sufficiency

Growing up, I had a dream to get married, have a large family, live on a property, grow my own food and basically be as self-sufficient as I could possibly be.  I didn't want to have to rely on other people any more than I absolutely had to.  Now that I'm an adult, my goals have changed and are continuing to change.

Lately, I've been thinking about this idea of self-sufficiency.  Is it really something to aspire to?  We live in an integrated society, but is that a good thing or a bad thing?  We have farmers, manufacturers, shops, cleaners, hospitals, schools, etc.  Maybe being part of a wider community is a good thing.  It enables everyone to focus on developing and utilising their unique skills.  I'm grateful for all the members of my community.  At the moment, I am particularly grateful for the people who repair roads and remove rubbish.

The other morning I went for a walk.  I have a policy for my walks - walk mindfully.  That means not listening to any music or podcasts or stories.  It means immersing myself in my environment and actively seeking to be aware of all my surroundings through my senses.  As I walked this morning, I was noticing that the new leaves on the hedges that I was passing were a lighter shade of green than the older leaves.  These thoughts transitioned into thinking about how well the plants survived the flood.  The grass didn't bat an eyelid after being submerged under metres of flood water.  The plants don't worry about what is happening around them, they just keep on living as best they can.  They can't do this on their own however.  They need some water at least, and sunshine, and carbon dioxide.  They rely on other things.  Nature is not self-sufficient.  The different elements of nature rely on one another for the things that they need.  They give what they can and they take what they need.

Bible Names: Adam

I have been doing some research on women leaders in the Bible (and no, I'm not ready to post anything yet).  This quest began before I listened to "The Making of Biblical Womanhood" by Beth Alison Barr (a book I highly recommend), but was rekindled by it.  In order not to miss any women, I started scanning through the Bible from Genesis.  Suddenly, I was struck by Genesis 5:2 (Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.).  THEIR name Adam?!  What does Adam mean?  Thus began my exploration into the meaning of Bible names.

Adam (see H120) - ruddy i.e. a human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.)

This name was given to both the man and the woman when they were created, see Genesis 5:2: "Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created."  Sometimes this name is used to refer only to the man, however most of the time it is used to refer to human beings in general as we can see from Genesis 5:2.  The majority of the time this word is translated as man (408x) or men (121x) as opposed to Adam (13x), person(s) (8x), common sort (1x) or hypocrite (1x).  Every time, other than in Genesis 5:2, this word when translated as 'Adam' refers only to the first man.

There is another word that is translated as Adam (see H121), this word is used in some of the verses that are speaking specifically about the first man.  It is not used to refer to human beings in general. 

In the new testament the word Adam (see G76) has two definitions: Adam, the first man; typically (of Jesus) man (as his representative).  Both uses of the word can be seen in 1 Corinthians: "For the scripture says, “The first man, Adam, was created a living being”; but the last Adam is the life-giving Spirit" (1 Corinthians 15:45 GNT).  The first Adam was given life; the last Adam gives life.

Not only is this word translated differently within the one version of the Bible, it is also translated differently between versions of the Bible.  Out of the 54 English translations listed on Bible Gateway, 28 use the word 'man' to refer to human beings in Genesis 1:26, e.g. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth (Genesis 1:26 KJV).  Five use the word 'mankind'.  The remaining 20 translations use the term 'humans', 'human beings', 'humankind' or 'humanity'.  Why all the differences?  Why the predominant use of the word man to refer to human beings?

If we were to look at the orgin of the word 'man' in the English language, we would find the following:

The etymologically primary sense of the word is 'human being, person,' and that is what it generally meant in Old English (Ayto, 1990).

Ayto (1990) goes on to explain how the sexes were distinguished with 'wer' for the male and 'wif' for the female.

During the Middle English and early modern English periods 'male person' gradually came to the fore, and today 'person' is decidedly on the decline (helped on its way by those who feel that the usage discriminates against women).  Woman originated in Old English as a compound of wif 'woman, female' and man 'person' (Ayto, 1990).

The first English translations of the Bible were made during the time when the meaning of the word 'man' was gradually transitioning from 'human being, person' to 'male person'.  This would appear to explain the two meanings that we can find when we read the Bible.

References:

Ayto, J (1990). Dictionary of Word Origins. Arcade Publishing: New York.